I meant to get this up yesterday, as I'm sure by now that many of you have already digested what Mike Holmgren and Eric Mangini stated in Monday's press conference that addressed the trading of Brady Quinn and Kamerion Wimbley. If you'd like to read the full transcript, you may do so here. Otherwise, continue on to see some select quotes and comments.

For simplicity, I am mostly going to provide the quotations made by Holmgren. We all know that what he has to say is typically far more interesting than Mangini's reserved manners. Naturally, then, I'll start off with something from Mangini:
Eric Mangini
(On why he is confident in Jake Delhomme) - "I’ve known Jake a long time. I was the DB coach in New England at the Super Bowl against Carolina. I felt pretty good going into the first half, one of the lowest scoring Super Bowls and I can tell you that last 30 minutes were part of the worst coaching experience I’ve had. The way he lit us up. Then we come back the next year and it’s kind of the same. Over time, he’s been a proven winner. He’s been a consistent winner.
His completion percentage over the years, that’s been consistent as well. I don’t think it’s uncommon for a guy to have a bad year, but when you look at his body of work last year, I know the touchdown to interception ratio, I know what that was and I get that, but there were a lot of good throws on that tape too. There were a lot of winning throws on that tape as well. Guys do go through bad years, but over time, I think as Mike said, he’s been consistent in terms of his level of production and his ability to win games."
Comments: This is what I tried to stress in my article that tried to highlight the positives of signing Delhomme. The Panthers were consistently able to do well under him for the most part. You can attribute that to other areas of the team, but you can't deny that Delhomme played his part. Trying to say that there were a lot of good throws on last year's tape is quite a stretch for optimism though.
Mike Holmgren
(On naming a starter before training camp)- “I would hope or not too long into that we have decided that this is the way we want to go. I know this, Seneca Wallace, who I had in Seattle, will come in and will compete like crazy. You guys will like what you see. He’s a fine player. He can really pass the ball. There are a lot of things you are going to like about Jake as well. He is 35 years old. We understand that, but physically he is really fine. It does kind of beg the question about the future and long term and all of those things. There aren’t many (Brett) Favre’s around that can play until, what is Favre? 45? I don’t know. Because of the moves we made right now, it doesn’t preclude us from continuing to do stuff. I will tell you that too. We have this draft coming up, you know. So we will see.”
(On judging Quinn on 12 starts)- “It was difficult and I’m not sure it’s really fair, to be honest. I’ve said and I meant it when I told you that, 12 games aren’t enough to get a real good feel and certainly Eric has a better feel than I do, having coached him and been around him. That’s the unfortunate part of this. He was here three years and only played in X amount of games and that really isn’t enough. You should have a pretty good idea as a coaching staff, kind of where this is headed, I would think, but it’s not enough. Sometimes you have to make decisions that you think it’s the way to go and we’ll see.”
Comments: The interesting thing for me would be how soon the trigger would be pulled on benching one of these quarterbacks if (or when) they struggle to start the season. The impression that Holmgren gives is that "the guy" will be "the guy," but this isn't the typical situation where I think either one of these quarterbacks will make our team this year (as opposed to breaking it).
Mike Holmgren
(On why the quarterback position is better after trading for a career backup and an aging veteran)- “That doesn’t sound that great (joking). One, the ‘career backup’ played for me so I know him better than any quarterback that has been mentioned in this room. I think he is a potential starter. Yes, he has been a backup, but he has been a backup to a Pro Bowl player. Mark Brunell was a backup for me to Brett Favre and he went to the Pro Bowl. You get into a situation and you are a career backup, but that’s a phrase and I’m not sure exactly what that means sometimes. As far as the ‘aging veteran,’ my own belief is this team needs an aging veteran. They need a guy who’s going to grab everybody by the throat and say follow me through that door. That’s what we need. I don’t look at him as an aging veteran. I look at him as the leader that I wanted in the locker room if in fact he is the starter. We are using a different lens to look at those two guys, I guess, is the best way to put that.”
(On if he ever remember another team having to deal with an older quarterback joining a new team who had a good career then a bad year)- “Personally, I’ve never had to deal with anything quite that specific with his age and so on. I think this, when I was able to sit down and we talked extensively about his year. Quite honestly I said, ‘Hey. I’ve watched you play and played against you a long time. What the heck happened?’ He was very candid, very open. I suspect he will be with you, when you ask him those questions. Once we had that discussion, I really felt like this will work. If there are physical reasons why, now you probably don’t do it. You can’t overcome those. The reasons why this happened, I think we have a fine coach, a fine staff and I have every confidence they are going to make that work and I really have a lot of confidence in this guy. Again, let me just say this, how long is Jake going to play? I forget how many years we signed him to. How many years? Who knows? Two? Thanks. So we have two and you can kind of paint the picture yourself what we are going to try to do, but as for right now, this next season, I think we have a great combination.”
(On if the quarterback position was stuck here last year)- “I did not. When I watched film of last season, which is what I had to go on. It looked like they were struggling a little. I’ve told you this and I will say it again, when your quarterbacks play kind of the way they played, forget about the reasons why, you can come up with a million reasons why, but when they play the way they played it’s pretty hard to win games in this league. I just felt I wasn’t going to be doing my job if I didn’t attack that situation. It wasn’t just me, I want you to know that. You can ask me all the questions you want and I said this in our first day, Eric, Tom Heckert, there’s a group of five guys that get in there and we bang around pretty good on all these decisions. He’s the coach and I made him a promise when I first got here. I am not going to give him a player he doesn’t want. I’m not going to do that. We have to talk about this stuff. The quarterback thing was very important and that’s kind of how it happened.”
Comments: Looking forward to recapping Delhomme's presser, which I think might be happening today at noon. Also, Holmgren was a little too kind when he said that Quinn and Anderson looked like they were struggling a little last season.
Eric Mangini
(On Peyton Hillis)- “I like Hillis as a tailback. Hillis had 126 yards against us in New York. He had a string of three or four weeks there, before he got hurt late in the season, this was in I think ’08. He had been very productive as a tailback and that’s what he played in college and he got behind two really good draft picks and kind of got lost in the shuffle there. He’s a physical guy. He’s tough with the football in his hands. You could use him as the tailback and (Lawrence) Vickers as the fullback and you get a lot bigger.
You could use him as a fullback with Jerome (Harrison) and both of those guys are really effective catching the ball and even running with the ball, you can give the fullback the ball, not that we gave Lawrence a few bones this year. You can mix him in a lot of different places. He’s returned some kicks. He’s played on special teams. He’s done a lot of good things in a young career. In terms of where we will use him, I’m not sure, but it adds versatility when you try to decide on the 45-man roster to have a fullback that can play tailback and can also do something on (special) teams.”
Comments: Hillis is the type of all-purpose player that really could define the Cleveland Browns (halfback, fullback, special teams, receiver). We'll probably even mix a halfback toss in at some point for him ;)
Mike Holmgren
(On Delhomme being a mentor)- “We talked specifically about that. He is going to have his hands full learning a new offense. Being the player I want him to be and Eric wants him to be. This is not a stop gap. As a quarterback, we want him to win games for us. Not manage the game and all that stuff, but win games for us as the quarterback. That’s his job. When I told him was this, because he has this natural instinct I think. He is a very friendly guy, he is easy to like, with his teammates as well. I said, ‘I want the younger players to just watch you. You don’t have to be anybody but what you are. You don’t have to go overboard to be their teacher. We have coaches, we have good coaches. They are going to coach the team, you play, and they will watch how you do things. That is your mentoring.’ If it goes any farther than that it’s fine, but that’s what I asked him to do.”
Comments: Delhomme's not here to be a Ken Dorsey, and we're not paying him to be a Ken Dorsey. Although he did have Steve Smith to work with in Carolina, he also worked with a lot of young (albeit unsuccessful) receivers, and that should be beneficial in terms of experience in coordinating with them.
Eric Mangini
(On Watson)- “I was there Ben’s rookie year and the year after. Ben has the ability to threaten in the middle of the field. He can really run. He puts pressure on the safeties, which is something you are always looking for from the tight end position. He is good on over routes, the deep overs or seven cuts, things like that. In playing against him in New York, multiple times, he creates issues. You guys probably saw that Buffalo game early in the year last year where he caught the two touchdowns there pretty close to back-to-back.
He’s made some big catches in some big games. I really like the guy. I like all the aspects of him as a worker, as a person. I think his best football is ahead of him. Remember New England had quite a few guys they could throw to. You trying to cover (Randy) Moss and (Wes) Welker and Watson kills you. You try to deal with Watson and one of the other two guys kills you. I am looking for him to kill somebody else now.”
Comments: We're back in the category of "respectability" at the tight end position, and perhaps one could say that we're only behind the Steelers in terms of the TE position in the AFC North. However, mentioning about the Patriots having Moss and Welker to benefit Watson doesn't compare to our situation, where we have the dynamic duo of Massaquoi and Robiskie.
Eric Mangini
(On if he has thought or dreamt about Cribbs and Wallace on the field at the same time)- “I haven’t dreamt about it, but I have thought about it and I think that’d be good. Both guys can throw the ball. Both guys can run with the ball. We may want to run the option. You can do a lot of things with guys like that. It creates problems defensively. Seneca’s primary position is going to be quarterback. That’s where we want him to play, but he’s a competitor and like Josh, he wants to do whatever he can to play football. His primary goal is to get on the field in whatever capacity. You do have to make those decisions if he is the two, how many of those plays are you willing to live with and roll the dice on.”
Comments: Ultimately, the same thing that held Seneca Wallace back from playing regularly at receiver in Seattle will probably hold him back in Cleveland: he's the backup quarterback. If he's the third-stringer, maybe you have the flexibility of inserting him into a few packages at receiver. At No. 2, his focus will be on holding the clipboard and perhaps counseling Delhomme on his experience of the West Coast offense.
0 recs | 384 comments
I just kind of skipped over the Mangini parts…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBMDnSNPWxw&feature=related
johnnyphoenix - March 17, 2010
Schefter just tweeted that we resigned Marcus Benard, Blake Costanzo, and Chris Jennings over on espn
http://twitter.com/Adam_Schefter
Kimble_79 - March 17, 2010
I wonder if that puts Davis’ future with the team in jeopardy.
North Coast Flea - March 17, 2010
Hmm RBs are Harrison, Jennings, Davis. Then FBs are Vickers and Hillis.
Jennings could still be cut right?
skipkirk - March 17, 2010
its possible…or a trade. who knows exactly.
bross09 - March 17, 2010
I think we’ll see Hillis as a 3rd dow, short yardage RB, as we saw with Charles Ali, Mangini doesn’t like to carry 2 fullbacks
North Coast Flea - March 17, 2010
After reading the above, I think Mangini would love to carry two fullbacks provided they fill different roles. Ali is like a poor man’s VIckers. Hillis is a different, more versatile type of player IMO.
rufio - March 18, 2010
This.
SpecialBrownie - March 18, 2010
Yeah exactly. Hillis could be Brandon Jacobs with better hands. Oh and he can share the field with Harrison and go run a pass pattern. Don’t even regard him as a fullback, he doesn’t play the same role of Lawrence Vickers whatsoever. Great addition. No need to draft a big runningback now.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
down*
North Coast Flea - March 17, 2010
If anybody gets cut its gotta be jennings.
jaws. - March 17, 2010
That’s quite a sig.
danvail - March 17, 2010
The quote happened here too. Quite a site DBN has turned into.
gahnki - March 17, 2010
Hell in a handbasket.
golanbatrac - March 17, 2010
Yeah, two people told me to change my sig to it and one of em got recced 3 times.
North Coast Flea - March 17, 2010
hahahahahahaha
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
Thanks for the recap, I had been looking for this.
Red-Right-88 - March 17, 2010
I am glad Holmgren is honest when he states" 12 games is really not enough to evaluate Quinn, I guess we will find out" This has been my point about Quinn. I guess we will see.
It will be interesting to see who the Browns draft.
Grockcubs - March 17, 2010
Who is this Robiskie character that you speak of?
Bernie19Kosar - March 17, 2010
His name is Andrew:
http://smumustangs.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/robiskie_andrew00.html
or possibly kyle:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/player-Kyle-Robiskie-92533
btw, when I played with Kyle he was about 5’8" 140, talk about a growth spurt.
notthatnoise - March 17, 2010
he’s the one last year that was over there pouring gatorade for everyone
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
Been waiting a long time to hear that.
danvail - March 17, 2010
Umm, liar.
danvail - March 17, 2010
So we will eather trade up to grab Bradford, stay at 7 and see who drops or move up a little and grab Clausen.Eather way a QB will be are first ick IMO.I hate that idea but it looks more that way everyday.With 12 picks this drat for the Browns will be intresting.
Brownsfan4ever - March 17, 2010
I still don’t think they’ll take a QB at 7, unless by some miracle Bradford is there. I think there is no chance of that happening.
drjeo - March 17, 2010
Right.
In fact I think it is much more likely we trade up later in the draft, maybe getting into the second round again, and taking a QB. McCoy maybe?
Bernie19Kosar - March 17, 2010
Same.
emily522 - March 17, 2010
I think its all a waiting game with Tebow’s stock. Either Holmgren gets antsy and moves back into the second half of the second and takes tebow or waits for him to fall into the third. I’d be nervous as hell though if I wanted the guy because I know jacksonville needs to sell tickets.
jaws. - March 17, 2010
I don’t see us taking Tebow.
For one thing, we’d need to move Joe Thomas to Right Tackle, and who wants to do that?
TheDriveStillHurts - March 17, 2010
Didn’t you know? He’s relearning how to throw right handed…
Spidey - March 17, 2010 via mobile
i heard the team feels comfortable with joe thomas playing both LT and RT at the same time.
Dawg Nuts - March 18, 2010
Did you see the ESPN news report on Tebow and who they showed talking to him? Holmegren looked to have a nice talk with Tim :(
Brownsfan4ever - March 18, 2010
Mangini was there as well. And you don’t get a more Mangini-player than Tebow.
skipkirk - March 18, 2010
This is completely subjective and I don’t know if he’d do it but I really wouldn’t want Tebow using the Browns as a medium to promote religion. It’s not right and football isn’t a place for religion, unless you’ve won the Super Bowl and you need to thank the big man.
SpecialBrownie - March 18, 2010
Of course. I don’t think he would do it though.
skipkirk - March 18, 2010
Win the big one? Me either.
danvail - March 18, 2010
If the kid turns out to be a winner at the pro level, then by all means make him a brown! Why would it hurt your feelings so much? If that is what drives Tebow, then good for him. Let him talk about it.
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
This is why I always liked Barry Sanders. You didn’t see goofy endzone dances, you just saw scoring. However you feel about religion, it shows a humbleness of ones self. It shows that you do not think you are the cream of the crop. I for one like that he is open with that. It is a good quality.
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
Can you imagine what Sanders could have done on a mediocre or good team? It boggles the mind.
Mr Orange - March 18, 2010
Records that would most likely never be broken would be all his
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
Is it too early to keep an eye on his kid?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP4SVVTCKT4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dplei_bV_SI&feature=related
He’ll be a freshman at Oklahoma State this year.
golanbatrac - March 18, 2010
whoa, 1st video was a nice run, 2nd video looked like flashes of his fathers play!
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
Nice, Will have to keep an eye on him….
Mr Orange - March 18, 2010
I know some megachurches that aren’t in the humble business. I know a lot of people who one could say pervert their religion to make it all about them—the furthest thing from humbleness there is.
rufio - March 18, 2010
This is not true. Religious people can be some of the most big headed people around.
Also, I’m missing the Barry Sanders comparison, was he super religious too?
notthatnoise - March 18, 2010
Bernie19Kosar - March 18, 2010
bross09 - March 18, 2010
darn. there is a word cut off.. PL is supposed to be PLAY.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
I blame myself.
These probably need to come down.
I apologize if there is anyone I offended.
Bernie19Kosar - March 19, 2010
my bad.
I probably had the more offensive thing. I just get too tempted to make an al sharpton joke.
yours is probably okay. Mine was probably not and I admit it.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
I like fried chicken and watermelon too.
Brownie's Year - March 19, 2010
Some people really need to grow up, I’m part mexican, and when someone makes a beaner/border/dirty/lazy joke I don’t care what color the person is, if it’s funny I laugh, if it’s not I don’t. Ari Shaffer(sp?) had a really good border joke, and he’s Jewish. Some people just need to get over themselves. (not saying this is about you BY, just a general summary of my feelings on the situuation.)
North Coast Flea - March 19, 2010
You’re certainly entitled to that opinion. People who might be offended by the above are also entitled to feel that way too, though.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 19, 2010
To clarify my own thoughts on the matter: I have no problem with potentially offensive posts being deleted so long as all potentially offensive posts are deleted. As it stands, the criteria for determining what is and isn’t offensive is entirely arbitrary.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
the difference is you were calling one specific person on this board a cunt. it was intentionally inflammatory and done maliciously. i find it hard to believe you don’t see the difference.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
Rocland’s post was directed at one specific person. If that’s the criteria, then why wasn’t that post deleted?
And why is it, apparently, ok to make ‘fried chicken and watermelon’ jokes but not holocaust jokes?
Or what about the rampant homophobia that pops up on a regular basis here? If I can ignore the homophobic bullshit, I’d think others could ignore what personally offends them.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
by the way…if you are talking about the picture I posted. I admitted it was wrong and even suggested It be taken down. However it was not a direct attack on any one person here. It was a joke made at the expense of a “celebrity”. if we are going to hold that as also being inflammatory, than many things here that ARE making fun of a celebrity or famous person and MAY offend someone else, would have to come down.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
If we take down every post that might offend someone then there won’t be a lot of posts left to read, like any insult ever made to a players performance, anytime someone called Moon crazy etc. etc.
North Coast Flea - March 19, 2010
You can’t talk about football without hurling insults?
I’d think we could limit ourselves to football, sans insults, and still find plenty to talk about.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
That’s being a little hypocritical don’t you think Golan?
You’d explode if you couldn’t insult people.
SpecialBrownie - March 19, 2010
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I don’t notice much “rampant homophobia.”
If you’re referring to the post I think you are, Rocland didn’t threaten to rape anyone. he implied big ben might. it was a joke.
As far as the holocaust jokes, i can’t remember exactly what was said, but it seems obvious they were jokes. I’m also sure if someone were offended the posts in question were taken down.
As an example, on one of the current threads someone made a religious remark that may have started a heated argument and offended me personally. the entire conversation was taken down the same day, and for good reason.
What you did to get banned was singling out one person and calling them a “cunt” amongst other profanity-laced insults. You were not joking, you were completely serious. After your posts were taken down you threw a fit and said that you would continue to make personal attacks and dared the moderators to ban you, so they did. they are completely different situations.
should the “fried chicken and watermelon” post be taken down? maybe, but as long as we all recognize its just a joke and no one is upset by it, its probably fine.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
I believe you.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
So the holocaust joke was rightfully taken down because some mystery person took offense, yet the rape joke remains despite the fact that several people puclicly state that they were offended by it? How again is that not arbitrary?
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I don’t know the joke mentioned, but there is a difference between making fun of 6 million deaths and making fun of a STEELER who is a rapist…
It may be somewhat arbitrary but I believer that when a holocaust joke is made, it would go through someone’s mind at one point that it is seriously inappropriate. I am actually jewish and don’t mind them, but they are definitely extremely taboo. The person who makes a holocaust joke obviously (unless they are EXTREMELY ignorant) know it is definitely offensive to some people and has a good possibility of offending someone who is hearing it.
i do not believe that someone making a joke about ben roethlisberger (even if it a rape joke) will think that it is likely to offend someone. It is likely, in their mind, that it is found to be amusing…especially because he is a steeler.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Rape is never funny.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
It is not making fun of rape. it is making fun of ben roethlisberger through referencing his “rape” charges. It is a ben roethlisberger joke and those are funny.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
No, it’s a rape joke. You are using a serious situation to make a joke.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
but you can make a joke about a serious situation.
It is NOT a rape joke because it is not making fun of rape, but poking fun at ben roethlisberger who is in fact a steeler.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
It’s poking fun at somebody being raped.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
Its NOT. first of all, roethlisberger has NOT been convicted of raping anyone! There is no rape case, real or imaginary, that is being made fun of.
The thing that is being made fun of is the fact that Roethlisberger is a scumbag.
you truly don’t understand humor dude.
When south park made fun of the terry schiavo thing on their show did you think they were making fun of someone in a coma?
bross09 - March 20, 2010
You know what? For someone who can speak intelligently you come off pretty clueless at times.
I don’t understand humor?
It was a picture, addressed to a female, of a man who has been accused of rape winking with a caption that says you’re next.
That’s a rape joke and it’s offensive. I don’t give a damn if he’s been convicted or not. It uses implied rape as it’s punch line.
Get a clue.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
Jokes as anything are up for interpretation. I guess I just saw it as the punch line being “roethlisberger is a scumbag who is attracted to girls way to young for him”…
bross09 - March 20, 2010
BS.
“Attracted,” really? Then why the “You’re next?”
I’m going to be “attracted” to you next?
Don’t piss on my head and call it rain I believe the saying goes.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
It is not BS at all. this is what I saw the joke as and this is maybe what the poster saw it as. I see how it is offensive. However, I guess i just interpreted it from the beginning differently from you.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Excuse my language.
You are full of shit.
I’m an adult and i can tolerate differing opinion, even on so called hot button topics, but i’m not going to waste my time arguing with someone who just makes shit up after getting caught with their pants down. It’s entirely too time consuming and it’s not even a football topic, which means it’s not even my purpose for coming here.
You said it referenced rape and then you tried to say you just thought it meant attracted.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
dude, I’ve been on your side in this, but that was a rape joke.
notthatnoise - March 20, 2010
Recommended.
rufio - March 20, 2010
it would have been funny, if a specific name was not posted with the picture
Kimble_79 - March 22, 2010
And on another current thread, several people (including a moderator) are making Jesus jokes. Why does the potential to offend only apply in one instance and not the other? Because they’re only joking?
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
you were the one who started the Jesus stuff on that thread.
North Coast Flea - March 19, 2010
And…why is it allowed to stand?
Why are jokes targeting christians ok, and jokes targeting jews not ok?
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
because those jokes are not making fun of christianity, they’re making fun of the ridiculous image the media has given to tim tebow.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
So was my holocaust joke. Yet it got the axe. Arbitrary.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
look like i said, I don’t really remember what the holocaust one said. But there’s a big difference between the systematic murder of an entire ethnic group and the stereotype of black people liking water melon.
That aside, even if we do want to say they are equal offenses, these are pretty borderline in terms of deletion. It would not shock or surprise me if these were deleted, because they probably deserve to be (as both posters said themselves). At the same time, they’re just jokes, and I personally don’t find them so offensive that they should be taken down.
Its an imperfect system. Don’t take it personally when something gets deleted.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
yes. i have had stuff deleted I think on here, and also over at LGT. I learned not to take offense. I came in hot headed but have realized sometimes you have to cool down.
BTW, also making fun of Sharpton (because my post was not making fun of african american’s but blacks in the media who play the race card to get attention, and become in a way, media whores), I found out something interesting he said about the tiger woods thing. He he criticized tiger woods. NOT because he was sleeping with women, but because he was sleeping with white women and not black women. he called tiger woods a bad african (even though he is half asian american). Sharpton has ragged on tiger ever since he married elin, a white women. He has also (even before this at times) criticized tiger woods for playing a white man’s game…I wonder, did he criticize jackie robinson too?
bross09 - March 20, 2010
No your post was also making fun of african americans.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
and like I said…I don’t mind if it is taken down.
My post however was NOT making fun of the african-american population as a whole, but a certain one who pulls the “race card” way too much and in fact reinforces some stereotypes.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Fine.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
That the same fucked up lines of thinking lead to both?
rufio - March 20, 2010
I’m not defending the method of thinking that leads to racism. but the holocaust is worse than someone liking watermelon.
notthatnoise - March 20, 2010
I agree. there is a difference between racism and genocide.
yes, one does reinforce stereotypes and that is never good, but is killing 12 million people good either?
The holocaust was no laughing matter. I have relatives that 50 years ago, would have taken a pistol and shot someone who made a joke like that.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
could you actually please send me in an e-mail what the joke is? (my e-mail is on my profile now). I do not want you to have it posted and then get in trouble with brad. However, I want to truly judge if it is “making fun of the ridiculous image” of the holocaust or just making fun of dead people.
I personally do not believe that there is a “ridiculous image” made of the holocaust…unless you count holocaust deniers…
bross09 - March 20, 2010
the main difference i’m getting at here is there is a potential to offend with some of this stuff, even if it is meant jokingly. What you did was intended to offend.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
Who did I intend to offend with my holocaust joke?
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
funny. not your holocaust joke, calling bross a cunt.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
You were replying to a post about the Jesus jokes, not betsy. You should be more clear what it is you’re talking about.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I thought it was pretty obvious this discussion was about your posts in general. I’m not separating them.
Also, are you really still calling him betsy? are you seriously unable to just let something go?
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
I’m not asking you to separate them, you are the one asking me to separate them. When I hit the up button beneath a post, and the post that it leads to is about religious jokes, I’d expect that religious jokes is the topic of conversation.
If you want an answer, you need to be clear what it is you’re referring to if you can’t be bothered to reply to the correct post. I am not a mind reader.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
lets go back a little further than one post shall we:
I was trying to get back on point, not just talk about the holocaust joke.my post in green above is talking about ALL of the offensive things you’ve said. YOU chose to only talk about the holocaust jokes, so when I said:
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
I still don’t follow. I didn’t dodge any of the post in green.
What specific thing or things that I said were ‘intended to offend’?
If it’s calling betsy a cunt, then yeah, that was, in-fact, intended to offend. I was fucking pissed. Betsy was flagging my posts left and right and having them deleted all over the board for a week or more (and yes it was betsy — he admitted it). None of the posts which were deleted were ‘intended to offend’. They were tame compared to what betsy posted above (and sometimes, not even jokes). Betsy spent a week or more pretending to be oh-so offended by everything I posted because I told him to ‘stop shitting out the first thought that pops into his head a dozen times a minute’ when he was, in fact, shitting out a dozen posts a minute — spamming every thread on the board. The thread in which I called betsy a cunt was where it all came to a head (and literally 3 dozen posts — most of the conversation — were gone before you ever saw it.).
Now, I’ve ignored a lot since I’ve been back (including a post deletion). I tried to handle Rocland’s rape nonsense without getting in anyone’s face, and let it go at that. But I’m not about to stand idly by while Mr. oh-so sensitive betsy, the cunt who had so many of my posts deleted, is here posting nigger jokes. No fuckin’ way. It’s the same as it was then, if the mods won’t take care of it, ban me or leave me alone when I go after the motherfucker.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
See now this to me looks like you are trying real hard to get banned again, try removing the applicator next time before you read any posts.
North Coast Flea - March 19, 2010
Honestly, I couldn’t care less if I get banned. I would have cared three months ago, but the place has went to shit since.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I’ve actually found the last 3 months pretty pleasant, minus the influx of fly-by posters that come along with the start of free agency and the draft.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
You must love hitting z a hundred times to find the one post by someone who actually has something interesting to say? Or maybe you just like talking about Troy Smith?
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
If nothing anyone says here interests you than why did you come back? There are plenty of other ways to get info on the Browns.
North Coast Flea - March 19, 2010
Who said that nothing anyone says here interests me? It’s the signal to noise ratio I’m bitching about.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I think it has been okay. there have been an influx of new people, but in general, the articles are good and there isn’t much to talk about since there are no games, but it is still a nice place to go.
why do you think it is worse now anyways?
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Take this in the nicest way possible of course, but sometimes (quite a bit actually) you and jaws get really antsy in your pantsies. You guys sometimes overflow posts. I’d assume this is what irks him.
SpecialBrownie - March 20, 2010
It depends for me…there might be a day or week where I overflow posts, then another week, I don’t comment much.
I also rarely reply to something once a post is going, (like it has 100-200 comments on it) that isn’t a reply to me. I try not to overflow posts and sometimes, I don’t even comment on certain posts (or maybe make one or two).
bross09 - March 20, 2010
i have no problem with you at all, and think you’ve brought some decent stuff to the site; but you just can’t really believe what you just said, can you?
Dawg Nuts - March 20, 2010
??
bross09 - March 20, 2010
my point is that all of what you said above is false. it’s okay, i’m not angry or trying to start a fight, it just isn’t true.
really? be who you are, there’s no need to hide it. you clearly post more comments than most on here.
Dawg Nuts - March 20, 2010
Dawg is right, I may flood some posts at times, but you got me beat drastically in that.
North Coast Flea - March 20, 2010
I didn’t say anything that was false. there have been weeks where I have not posted much and then weeks where I have posted much more. there are even posts that sometimes get really big that I don’t even post on. I try not to get involved in a conversation on a post that doesn’t involve me once the post has become long.
I post when I actually want to post on a certain topic. sometimes I don’t because I don’t want to. some weeks I have too much stuff to do to post regularly.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
bross you post at a ridiculous rate, and that’s coming from me.
rufio - March 20, 2010
HAHA See ya bro.
Brownie's Year - March 19, 2010
Not if I see you first.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I’ll buy you a beer!!
Brownie's Year - March 19, 2010
I’ll drink that beer!
golanbatrac - March 20, 2010
You better. It’ll be a Tetley. lol
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
That’s a brit beer, isn’t it? Should I bring a fork?
golanbatrac - March 20, 2010
And a knife.
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
well…
also, in the thread where you finally got banned, it was me who was flagging your posts. I don’t think it reflects very well on our community for people to act the way you acted then and are starting to act now.If you want to behave like this, I’m sure you’ll find cleveland.com more than welcoming.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
Excellent. I knew I’d flush the motherfucker out. I had a feeling it was you.
As much as I dislike betsy, at least he was man enough to admit to it from the git go.
It’s on, festus.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I would have admitted it but you were banned before i could. I haven’t flagged anything you’ve posted yet, but come on man, this is pathetic.
You’re acting like a little kid.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
Dude, bro, the hole you’re digging is at about 5’ 7". Stop while you’re a head.
Brownie's Year - March 19, 2010
btw, what is festus supposed to mean? is it anything like festivus?
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
maybe it’s like a festiva
North Coast Flea - March 20, 2010
No. It’s a festivus for the reast us us.
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
damnit
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
“Festus is a Latin word meaning “festive, festal, joyful, merry” and may refer to:"
This is what I thought it meant. there was also a roman historian named festus…and in the play 12th night by shakespeare (which often uses latin-esque names), the clown was named feste.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
That might be the best thing I have ever seen on here. Bye bye colontrac.
Brownie's Year - March 19, 2010
Hey bross,
If you read my above posts and aren’t super fuckin’ pissed and are willing to bury the hatchet, I’m game. I’ve got no problem with you and apologize for going overboard a bit both here, and in that thread a month ago. Either way, it’s all good on my end and you won’t hear another thing about any of this from me.
golan
golanbatrac - March 20, 2010
Yes, when i first joined I was thin skinned and did say some stupid things.
I have changed. people change. yes, what you said was offensive, and yes it deserved to be flagged, but at the same time, I am not going to attack back because
a) I am not SUPER offfended…the betsy thing personally feels a little weak now anyways
b) It would just be a waste of time and energy.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I am not really all that sensitive anymore. Calling me betsy to get a rise out of me isn’t funny.
it is obviously trying with intent to offend me…Too bad I don’t care because people like you just never change anyways. a week back and you are already into your bad habits.
again with the C word…good job.
and on the subject of your posts, maybe I was insulted and at the time, they felt like attacks with intent (and it is likely some of them are)
And again, you do not understand the joke. Did I say all black people like fried chicken and watermelons? No. I was pointing out the idiocy of al sharpton and how not only does he perpetuate many stereotypes, but he just destroys intelligent debate…just like calling people names and attacking them does.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Hey bross…. golan flat out apologized to you. It takes a real man to do that.
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
a) I hadn’t read the apology when i wrote this.
this was back to the post where he again called me a C***….please use the up button…just saying.
b) it takes a man to apologize but it takes an immature person to call another a C****
and do apologies cure all wounds? They do not cure all wounds caused by words. Sorry was never good enough for my father. sorry is just a word you can say. you can keep making the same mistake over and over and keep saying sorry…what does the sorry do then? that is the 2nd time here he has called me C***. He has insulted other people from what i have seen and gathered. He has been here…a week? and is back to doing it. Sorry does not mean anything if you will still do the action.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I would also like to tell you a jewish fable. It is about gossiping but the lesson about words and watching what you say applies to golan.
(don’t feel like writing it all out)
Words ARE like feathers from a pillow. Saying you are sorry is trying to snatch up the feathers on a windy day.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Flag!
bross09 - March 20, 2010
RED HERRING!
bross09 - March 20, 2010
yeah. i thought we already cleared up the fact that I am a male, not a female.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Hush Brenda.
SpecialBrownie - March 20, 2010
Being serious, is the problem with the word or the word being used as an insult?
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
the word being used as an insult like golan saying
bross, stop being such a cunt.
I am paraphrasing but this is what got him kicked off before.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
for me personally its the way the word was used, but i’m sure for others its the word itself.
notthatnoise - March 20, 2010
That’s what I was wondering. I thought it was the use of the word, but now see others using it.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
the only reason anyone on here has used that word is to give an example of the stretches golan will go to be rude.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
It doesn’t matter why it’s used. If a word is offensive it’s offensive.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
Actually it does. I dunno if you are arguing for the sake of arguing, but these are the instances cunt was used on this post:
The only one I truly see a problem with is the one where someone is directly calling another that word.
Yes the others used the word, but the question is why did they use it? they were pointing out WHY golan got banned. so because you say so, no one should be allowed to say it, no matter the context.
If you are talking about someone and calling them that, then yes it is bad. however, in the context everyone was using it, there is no reason to get offended. the reason it was being used was to point out WHY golan was kicked off of here before and what he did wrong. To get pissy at everyone else is illogical and irrational.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
You are amazing. It’s an offensive word. Would you yell it in public?
I’m not defending golan using it to attack you. I’m pointing out you were mad because he attacked you.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
I am not overly mad at him…read the whole think. i said I personally don’t care.
I was not even using the word most of the time, which is why it is puzzling you are now targeting me. you are targeting me implying that I was the one using it and that I was pissed off at him. yes I used it once or twice but I was not the main perpetrator so what you are saying is pretty off target.
you know what, more than others, I tried to avoid typing it. you are amazing that you are just commenting on what I say and not the people that were using the words…you aren’t even going after golan who was the person who first used it.
you are completely misinformed right now on this issue and it would be nice if you would stop singling out just my comments.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
This is pointless, you have an excuse for everything.
I didn’t target you, my question was directed to NTN.
His response
My response.
Then you chimed in
I responded with this
and you felt like you were being attacked. Sorry if you feel that way, but i didn’t single you out, you responded and I said the word was offensive, you proceeded to talk about how golan had offended you when my comments all along were directed towards the offensiveness of the word.
The only reason i commented on what you said is because you keep responding to me about what golan did to you. I said i wasn’t defending golan but was commenting on the word itself not it’s usage.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
you are right that I did respond. I felt that you seemed to be commenting a lot on my posts but I did not feel “attacked” and I was not “offended”.
I agree the word is bad and it should have never made it on here. I dunno if brad had a busy week grading papers but honestly this whole thread should just be deleted personally. it has gone too far.
Also, I don’t believe i kept responding to you about what golan did to me. the past is the past and it is behind me. I don’t care.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I am pretty sure he chose that word in order to be the most offensive he could be.
rufio - March 20, 2010
Not matter what way you slice it, that word is offensive. Plain and simple.
Bernie19Kosar - March 20, 2010
the difference is what they are ACTUALLY making fun of. like NTN said, they are not making fun of christianity as a whole, but the IMAGE that the media has portrayed tebow as. they have portrayed him as a saint and the idea of this is what was being made fun of…they are not making fun of DEAD JEWS.
it is like when south park made their terry shaivo episode. they did not come out and explicitly say her name. nor did they make fun of people in a coma or “vegetables”. Instead they made fun of the situation. just like with tebow, the funnier thing was the situation and the media reaction. now that I think about it, I secretly hope that trey and matt make fun of the whole tebowmania…they made fun of the media “obamania” and the terry schiavo fiasco.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
^ blockquote fail.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
Maybe? I thought posts were taken down if deemed offensive? How many people have to say they’re offended before it gets pulled?
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
Dude, take a chill pill.
North Coast Flea - March 19, 2010
I’m perfectly calm, dude. hell, I’m actually in a good mood today.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
yes. I admitted that my picture was a bit racist and realized it later. but the intent was the same as the picture of big ben. it was a joke at the expense of a “celebrity”.
and the thing here is INTENT.
what is the difference between manslaughter and Murder. intent. yes both are bad, but there is a reason murder holds a higher sentence…INTENT.
when golan used cunt to PERSONALLY and INTENTIONALLY attack another, and then continued, that is worse than making a Joke and it accidentally offending someone. yes the comment should be deleted, but personal, intentional attacks do hold a higher “sentence” because of the intent. there is a difference between making a joke and someone getting offended, and insulting someone. one was just a little stupid, where the other was malicious.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Sorry but intent doesn’t mean squat. Just because you don’t intend something to be offensive doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
You perceived your joke to be inoffensive and posted it. Then you want to fall back on how you didn’t intend for it to be offensive. That’s bs.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
Actually intent does mean a lot.
I am comparing what golan has said to my picture.
my picture is a joke about a blowhard that can be perceived as insensitive towards african americans although it directly isn’t.
Golan calling someone a cunt, now how is that on the same level?
What is BS is all this attacking directed towards me.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Because you are trying to use the excuse it was just a joke i didn’t mean to offend anyone. It was offensive regardless of your intent.
Intent in this instance means nothing.
Also it directly is.
Golan calling someone a name is a personal insult. The offensiveness apparently is in the fact that you are being called a name, because you are obviously not offended by the use of the word because you continue to use it.
Your picture itself was offensive. You are offended at being called a name.
If you don’t want to be attacked you should start thinking before you post.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
but you are completely wrong.
Are murder and manslaughter the same thing? No
If you swing your arm and accidentally punch someone, is that the same as turning around, and hitting them intentionally in the face?
The difference is explicitness and implicitness. the post I made is not EXPLICITLY offensive or racist. It can be perceived like this, but it, itself is not. However, what golan said is EXPLICITLY offensive and meant to be so.
It is the difference between an idiot, and a vicious person.
by your logic, it is the same to make a joke in a room, accidentally offend someone, and then apologize; as calling someone by a racial slur. there is a large difference.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I am not wrong.
Are murder and manslaughter the same thing? No
If you swing your arm and accidentally punch someone, is that the same as turning around, and hitting them intentionally in the face?
We are not talking about murder.
Your post WAS EXPLICITLY offensive or racist. You used a picture that perpetuates a stereotype against a specific race in order to make a joke about one particular member of that race.
Here’s the thing, there is no difference when your joke in and of itself is offensive. You can tell black jokes to white people, white jokes to black people, jewish jokes to catholics, catholic jokes to jewish people. They are still offensive regardless of who is in the room.
You didn’t accidently offend someone and then apologize.
Your post was offensive you were just too happy to try and make a joke to realize that before you posted it. You then tried to cover your ass and say you were sorry. Why would you say you were sorry if the post itself wasn’t offensive?
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
So I can’t apologize if I don’t personally find the post offensive?
The post itself was IMPLICITLY offensive.
NO! I am not making a joke to perpetuate a stereotype. I do not even believe these stereotypes to be accurate. what I in fact WAS doing was poking fun at someone who himself perpetuates stereotypes of his own race and makes his race look bad in the public eye. The joke was about a person of a certain race who perpetuates the stereotypes himself…you have it completely backwards.
And I apologized because I should have realized that someone could interpret it to be offensive. it was not explicitly offensive but IMPLICIT. I try to avoid stuff that is even implicitly offensive. I apologized because I didn’t look at how it could be interpreted.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Race Card, al Sharpton, economics, financial status, politics.
There’s your joke on Al Sharpton.
The added watermelon and fried chicken is not needed. It perpetuates a stereotype by being included with the aforementioned topics. It’s offensive.
Like I said, you wanted to make a joke about Al Sharpton, fine, most people know about his reputation.
Your joke cross the line because it needlessly included the last bit.
Which then became the joke’s punchline. If it wasn’t it wouldn’t have been included because it has no relation to the other three topics.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
I did not needlessly include the last bit…it was already there…but whatever.
yes I do believe the the watermelon and fried chicken part was not necessary but I do not believe that what the person who made this was doing was perpetuating a stereotype, but giving 2 stereotypes about african americans as a way to poke fun of how al shaprton perpetuates stereotypes.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I recommend this post.
rufio - March 20, 2010
You’re not the only one.
Bernie19Kosar - March 20, 2010
block quote fail
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
This I can agree with. The joke was obviously offensive.
This I can not agree with. I believe there are grey areas here. I think bross’s picture was offensive. I think golan picking out one member of the site to harass and call profane names with the obvious intent of offending him is worse.What bross did can be described as ignorantly offensive. It was offensive but he posted it because he didn’t think. Golan was very calculated in choosing his words to be the most offensive they could be.
We are not talking about murder, but the analogy still fits. there’s a reason we punish premeditated murder more harshly than other murders.
notthatnoise - March 20, 2010
I agree with your second part. When i said “intent in this instance means nothing” I was referring specifically to the picture and not to what golan had typed.
Also bross’s actions might have been ignorantly offensive but the picture to me was explicitly offensive. Which is why i said intent means nothing, the picture itself was offensive it didn’t need any intent to make it so.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
right this i agree with. I hope I’ve been clear this whole time that I’m not trying to defend the pictures above as inoffensive, they are. My initial foray into this was when golan got up in arms about his posts being deleted but not these. he couldn’t see a difference. I think there’s a very pronounced difference. I was trying to explain why these might last a little longer than calling another member a cunt.
Having said that, I’m curious as to why all of this hasn’t been taken down by now, it seems like that should have happened days ago.
notthatnoise - March 20, 2010
Because you can’t divide by 0?
If the posts go would it create a hole in the internet?
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
I don’t know but that sounds pretty cool.
notthatnoise - March 20, 2010
On a semi-related note, I recently read in Psychology Today that when you laugh at an offensive joke, it is because you find it true on an Unconscious level.
I am not sure if I buy this completely, but it was interesting nonetheless.
gahnki - March 20, 2010
Very interesting. I hope it isn’t true cause that would mean I really hate Mexicans.
North Coast Flea - March 21, 2010
But then again I guess that’s the real reason mi raza crosses the border so frequently, to get away from the other Mexicans. If someone finds me telling this joke offensive that’s ok it’s your opinion, but you should know, you have no sense of humor.
North Coast Flea - March 21, 2010
I make Polish jokes at my buddy that ran into Shaq’s expense, and he does the same to me with Mexican jokes. But then my favorite joke is “I’m not racist, I hate everyone equally.”
North Coast Flea - March 21, 2010
Once someone told me that that rounding up all persons of my ancestry and putting them in concentration camps—in America—based entirely on race was entirely justified.
Then they said “no offense”.
rufio - March 20, 2010
That just isn’t right. people believe that they can say anything they want and then say “no offense” and it is okay.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
For the record i’m not saying you believe these things i’m commenting specifically on the post.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
yeah. I figured. I think this conversation is going nowhere personally. I posted a picture and didn’t think about the implications…
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Yeah I think it was messed up too. A concentration camp is a concentration camp, there is no gray area where it is OK.
North Coast Flea - March 21, 2010
Really? Who on here attacks members personally? Who on here calls members names all the time?
Yes, we poke fun at others and argue opinions, but when we don’t like something, we don’t start calling other members stupid, clueless, or cunt.
Brownie's Year - March 19, 2010
Seriously? If I had a nickle for every time in the last 9 months I’ve been called an ass, a douche, a douchebag, a Steelers fan, or worse, I’d have, like, a buck-fifty.
If I had a nickle for every gay joke I’ve ignored, I’d have more shoes than Eric Wright.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
Please quote some gay jokes.
You also were the first person to call yourself an asshole when you got back. If you’re going to call yourself a douche don’t complain when someone else does.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
Without looking, someone said that ‘Jesus was gay for Tebow’ today. A pretty tame example for sure, but I’m not about to go digging through posts.
I called myself an asshole long after having been called a plethora of names. And I made the point at the time that It would be silly to call yourself an asshole and then get offended when people agree.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
that joke is in no way making fun of gay people. that joke is a play on another joke (Tebow is gay for jesus) which isn’t intended to be derogatory, just to hyperbolically state how much tebow loves jesus. saying “jesus is gay for tebow” is making fun of the extent to which tebow is glorified in the media. He is held up as being so awesome that it almost seems like jesus would be looking up to tebow, rather than the other way around.
there is nothing homophobic about it. please try again.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
Like I said, I’m not digging through posts. Though thanks for the explanation. How would I manage without you?
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
yep. I believe that was the intent too.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I guarantee that would be offensive to some gay people.
rufio - March 20, 2010
yeah. I would not want to be compared to tim tebow…
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I actually asked my lesbian friend about this, she disagrees.
notthatnoise - March 20, 2010
well…she obviously has not heard of timmy T then. I can’t think of one lesbian who would want their sexual orientation to be associated with him…unless this lesbian is in the media…then they would adore it.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Your one lesbian friend does not speak for all gay people.
rufio - March 21, 2010
i’m typically one of your defenders, but the “gay for god” comment was mine, and it was merely a joke from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
Dawg Nuts - March 19, 2010
I know. I said it was a tame example (and I wasn’t offended — I rarely am), it was just the most recent example, and the only one to come immediately to mind. It’s all good.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
You must be pretty offended to be as combative as you are.
North Coast Flea - March 19, 2010
I’m perfectly calm. Today is a good day.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
yeah you seem real calm
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
Total zen.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
it comes through in your posts
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
I got what I was after. Back to being a good DBN citizen. An excellent day.
golanbatrac - March 20, 2010
I can tell, cause you are all sunshine and lollipops.
North Coast Flea - March 20, 2010
god…what you must be like on a bad day…Its like Rush Limbaugh with Roid rage…times 20…
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Or Rush Limbaugh without all his pills.
North Coast Flea - March 20, 2010
or mike gundy.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
this made me laugh
notthatnoise - March 20, 2010
the only ones I have heard in the 3-4 months I have been here is that one exchange between SB, BY, and someone else (I forget) about how they were a gay couple. However, it was kinda started by them anyways…so it was just people laughing with them not at them.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
A buck fifty? Go buy a KitKat with your accumulation. Treat yourself. Get the king size.
There are degrees of insults. Some words are more hurtful than others. If I said something stupid, which does happen, and you called me a douchebag, I wouldn’t mind. But when you chimed in on a conversation the other day that didn’t involve you, and you called me clueless, that’s a different thing.
Brownie's Year - March 19, 2010
1. I was already a part of that conversation (at least until you and betsy hijacked it).
2. Adults arguing the merits of Misfits vs Ramones? Seriously? That conversation was over in the seventh grade. I thought ‘clueless’ was being kind.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
just because something isn’t interesting or worth discussing to you doesn’t mean other people don’t care about it.
You know what else was over in the seventh grade? calling someone betsy.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
And just because people are interested in a subject, doesn’t mean that they’re not clueless, and that the subject isn’t juvenile.
HaHa, festus.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
We didn’t prevent you from saying that you liked Rush. And you weren’t in the Ramones/Misfits talk, so I don’t know how you say you were apart of it. Just because you think the argument was solved 20+ years ago doesn’t mean that people today can’t discus it.
Brownie's Year - March 19, 2010
It is a legitimate argument though.
It is like a sports fan arguing Montana or Roger Staubach. Is that 7th grade? No. The misfits/Ramones argument is a very valid music argument…maybe they aren’t as great as the 2 QBs I mentioned, but just because we are debating on a subject that isn’t football, it is clueless and 7th grade material?
bross09 - March 20, 2010
A buck fifty worth of nickels in nine months would be quite an accumulation of offensiveness.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
its 30 nickles. I don’t think its a stretch to see why golan might have been called an ass 30 times in 9 months.
notthatnoise - March 20, 2010
Steelers fan is just below the belt.
Bernie19Kosar - March 19, 2010
I’d rather be called a douchebag.
Brownie's Year - March 19, 2010
You’re not kidding.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
well knowing you, you probably provoked them and called them something just as bad first.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
This is very true, but people who play the race card about everything belittle the work of people such as Dr. King. I was on the bus once and the driver ask someone who was being loud and obnoxious to quiet down, she immeadiately shot back with “Oh it’s just cause I’m black!” I replied, no it’s because you are annoying and no one cares to hear your loud mouth.
North Coast Flea - March 19, 2010
I agree, although I’m sure a conversation about the exact parameters of the race card isn’t appropriate here.
Flippant references to fried chicken and watermelon in the context of African-Americans though, are going to piss off someone, and I can understand why.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 19, 2010
Yeah but the more you can joke about it the less power it gets as a racist remark. When someone says something racist in my direction I laugh at them. I lived in WV, and I was called the N^*%r a lot (yeah I don’t get it either) so I would just laugh at them and eventually they stopped because they saw it didn’t effect me.
North Coast Flea - March 19, 2010
and you aren’t actually black, right?
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Not one bit.
North Coast Flea - March 20, 2010
I thought so…
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I’m all for defanging racist barbs by reclaiming them or embracing them, but that’s an incredibly nuanced approach to take on a semi-anonymous Internet message forum. More often I think, it’ll propagate the meme you’re trying to mock at least as well as it suppresses it.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 20, 2010
Interesting concept.
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
yes. I admit my post was wrong and could offend someone. However I just intended to make fun of al sharpton for being a loony. It was an accidental thing and I had used the picture before and forgot it said fried chicken and watermelon. maybe I should have read.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Appreciated, bross. I was totally assuming this was a flippant joke or an accident and that nothing was meant by it.
Man, I’d hate for some new reader to be leafing through and see that at random on their first day though. Someone could seriously take it the wrong way, is all.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 20, 2010
yeah. so true about new readers.
It was a case of me forgetting to read. and just like the tebow joke, it might have seemed like the joke was directed at something that it wasn’t.
golan thought the “gay for jesus” was some homophobic thing…it really wasn’t.
Even in the context of what it says there, I do not believe the intent of whoever wrote this was to make a stereotypical remark and make a racist comment about blacks. I think the author was making fun of how every subject sharpton talks about automatically goes to race and that he himself is often the perpetuator of some of the same racist stereotypes by the way he talks.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I know what you mean. Living in Cali my whole life, I’ve been called "guero" thousands of times. It doesn’t bother me.
Brownie's Year - March 19, 2010
I don’t even know what that means. I am jewish and one of my friends goes to a catholic school (I was about to say the name b/c it is well known in cleveland but I forgot you live in cali for a sec) and I am maybe his only jewish friend. He makes fun of me at times for being jewish. I really don’t care, and it is usually all in good fun. for that kind of thing, i usually have a very thick skin. however, he has once or twice gone over the line and called me “Kike” (its like the N**** word for jews) and then I get pissed.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
It means "white boy" in Spanish.
I don’t like it, but I just don’t care anymore. It’s not worth the fights.
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
Not to blame anyone, but seconded.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 19, 2010
so, Holocaust jokes are verboten, and calling someone a cunt will get you banned, but ‘fried chicken and watermelon’ jokes and rape threats are a-ok?
This place is fucked up.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I’m gonna miss you again Golan…
SpecialBrownie - March 19, 2010
Am I going somewhere?
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
this was supposed to be more of a joke on al sharpton and his ignorance. I have no problem with african americans and have many friends who are, but al sharpton is just ignorant at times.
bross09 - March 19, 2010
at times?
North Coast Flea - March 19, 2010
Anyways, it’s been 18 hours since betsy posted this. At what point is it safe to assume that this sort of thing is ok?
I might have to add to betsy’s racist nonsense just to see how far is too far.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I flagged it.
Don’t know why all of this isn’t down yet, that’s some pretty racist stuff up there.
I actually think we’ve been too lenient on potentially racist posts at DBN in general. And I agree, if some potentially offensive things are taken down, all should be.
rufio - March 19, 2010
Thank you.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
I do agree with your ‘right and wrong’ argument. I am against the rape and chicken jokes.
Brownie's Year - March 19, 2010
right. I’m not trying to say they don’t deserve to be deleted, they do. I’m just not taking offense that they haven’t been deleted.
notthatnoise - March 19, 2010
I flagged it as well.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 20, 2010
I suggested it being taken down. I don’t know what brad is doing. Honestly, I forgot to read it when I posted it and I should have.
I did not even intend at all to make a bad joke. The fried chicken and watermelon were intentional and I believe it is making fun of al sharpton for bringing race into every argument than it is making fun of race in general.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Bross when you get experience as a racial minority in the US, especially as a Black man, then you can tell me that race isn’t involved in everything you do.
Your joke was not making fun of race in general. It is making fun of one race in particular.
Sharpton is one of too few people fighting for Black rights, and he’s a hero to a lot of people.
Don’t make the fucking joke.
rufio - March 20, 2010
My joke was not making fun of a race, race in race in general, but a man who does many things to perpetuate the stereotypes of one race.
so you automatically have seniority on things involving my post and things related to it?
Is it fighting for black rights to advocate black over white, and to go to extreme measures when one racist comment by a caucasian, but defend racism spewed from the mouths of blacks? I call that a bigoted double standard, not fighting for rights.
Maybe at one point sharpton was a great man, but his role in the media now is almost that of a black supremacist. He came out against tiger. not because he was giving a bad image to african americans, but because he was sleeping with white women. yeah. that is REALLY going towards tolerance and acceptance.
I make the joke because the man says some bigoted things, especially against whites. I believe he wants to fight for black rights, but instead is not doing anything positive for black rights and has ruined his public image to the point where many consider him a bigot.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
I don’t have seniority on “things involving your post and things related to it”, I am saying you have zero experience being a Black man in America.
Instead of pointing out shortcomings on Sharpton’s part, you made a bad joke about Black racial stereotypes. Make fun of Sharpton specifically = probably pushing it. Watermelon and fried chicken = not cool.
rufio - March 21, 2010
yes. I am sorry for including the watermelon and fried chicken part.
bross09 - March 21, 2010
It is clear that you are not.
rufio - March 21, 2010
You might not think so but I have apologized on here multiple times.
You can believe whatever the heck you want but you CANNOT say whether I am sorry. do you control my thoughts and emotions? No. I have apologized on here and I meant it. I even said it was dumb to put up, right after I put it up and realized it was dumb.
Now just because the post insulted someone you have made clear you respect, don’t try to twist the truth. I have apologized and have been sorry from the beginning. you can look at it however you want, but the truth is the truth.
bross09 - March 21, 2010
I can define being sorry as “acting as though you are sorry”, which you are not doing.
Just for once stop talking.
rufio - March 22, 2010
The watermelon and fried chicken aspect of this joke was racist, intended or not. On the other hand:
Other than the fact that this is political topic and not appropriate here, mocking public figures is not against the community guidelines here.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 20, 2010
It’s funny how things work.
Most people like chicken and watermelon. I sure as hell do. But to say a black person likes it is wrong. It is considered a racist comment and a dumb one at that.
It’s all bullcrap and I can’t believe this conversation lasted this long.
Brownie's Year - March 20, 2010
I think it is racist, depending on context. However, we’re just running around in circles here and it’s time to stop. I won’t post in this thread again.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 20, 2010
Seriously? You can’t be that naive as to how stereotypes evolve and work.
Villeslgr - March 21, 2010
Naive? No, I get it. I just think it’s stupid in some cases.
In my group of friends, there are Hispanics, blacks, and whites (my best friend is black). My black friends say that the chicken thing is funny and lame, but really offensive to some. I believe them and think it shouldn’t be said, even though it’s stupid.
Brownie's Year - March 21, 2010
I do agree. It is a case by case basis. some people do get offended at times by a certain stereotype but some just find it stupid, sometimes outdated, or inaccurate. the watermelon thing is one that I have noticed is considered stupid and outdated by many. just an example.
some stereotypes “go out of style”. I am not saying that they were ever in style but some just stop being used. They fall out of fashion and by that poitn are inaccurate.
bross09 - March 21, 2010
Let me know when you find a fashionable accurate stereotype.
Villeslgr - March 21, 2010
Every race has stereotypes. Who cares. End the conversation.
Brownie's Year - March 21, 2010
I guess you completely missed my point. some stereotypes become completely outdated and are not used. the watermelon one is IMO on its way out the door from what I have witnessed.
bross09 - March 21, 2010
BROSS. STFU SERIOUSLY. IT’S F%&KING ANNOYING.
SpecialBrownie - March 21, 2010
It isn’t the fact that he is a public figure, it’s that his publicness is inextricably tied to politics and racism, two topics that should be left off of this board altogether.
I did not bring Sharpton up. I am trying to explain to bross how his above comment is untrue, and how bringing up an inherently political figure such as Al Sharpton will bring discussion like this about.
I am in favor of this whole thread coming down. If any of my comments here have been political, they have been under the root comment, and all of it should be deleted.
rufio - March 21, 2010
Rec
Villeslgr - March 20, 2010
Don’t take me out of context here…let get more specific…From what I have seen of Tim Tebow he shows a since of humbleness which I’m sure is greatly related to his religion. I’m not saying there aren’t religious people out there that don’t act like there crap don’t stink. I know there is…however he for example does not appear to be that way. Also, the Sander comparison is there to show humbleness, regardless of religion. He never did crazy dances and whatnot. I was more pointing toward humbleness that I like in guys.
Kimble_79 - March 22, 2010
Personally, I agree. Professionally, if the man can meet the requirement, well, I suppose it’s his business.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 18, 2010
ESPN said so? We are screwed!
Roger Dorn - March 18, 2010
rec
rufio - March 18, 2010
I must have already rec’d this.
golanbatrac - March 19, 2010
i think between now and the draft, holmgren will try to wheel and deal any way he can to get up and take bradford. i’m sticking with my butch davis gut feeling on this one.
Dawg Nuts - March 17, 2010
Bradford is going number 1 to the Rams. Out of reach.
Roger Dorn - March 18, 2010
aw, but nothing is out of reach for the right price tag. I don’t want to do this, but the statement remains true
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
Rams aren’t interested in trading down unless blown away.
Roger Dorn - March 18, 2010
your absolutely right, it would have to be a blockbuster deal to get them out of #1, however, one could make the case we have enough picks and/or players to pull it off. Clearly though, I hope and pray we don’t do this
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
I haven’t been following the what the Rams have been saying or leaning towards much at all. I’m just curious why so many people are thinking that it’s pretty much close to written in stone? (I’m not saying I’m skeptical or anything, just haven’t been following close enough.)
Also, what’s this mean for Suh? Second overall, or do some people still have him behind McCoy? Or am I even way more behind here than I thought?
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
I have good reason to believe Bradford is the pick, but I won’t go further than that. The possibility still exists that some sort of medical evaluation comes out that changes the dynamic, but as of now Bradford is the pick.
I would imagine Suh is a lock at 2, and that makes me think McCoy is a lock at 3.
Roger Dorn - March 18, 2010
I would be ok with Bradford, I just don’t want to give up too much for him…
Mr Orange - March 18, 2010
me neither…if he is still there after #3 pick, then maybe we start talking
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
I don’t mind a QB, just not with our first pick whether we have a shot at Bradford or not.
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
Analysts are kind of all over the place with this one. Many have the Rams grabbing Suh, but others have them getting Bradford. They have continually passed on QB’s in the past, but I don’t think they will pass on Bradford. They desperately are in need of a franchise QB and someone to pick up the fan base after a dismal year. Suh under many analysts is being shown to get snagged by Tampa Bay at the 3rd spot or by Detroit at #2.
http://walterfootball.com/draft2010.php
Here is walterfootball’s latest mock draft
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
If, by some miracle, Bradford’s available at seven, hopefully we get great offer to trade down.
Simmsinns - March 17, 2010
Just no Clausen please, don’t know why but just have a bad feeling about him….plus I don’t really think he’s a Mangini type guy either.
Mr Orange - March 18, 2010
no way. if he’s there at 7, we’ll take him.
Dawg Nuts - March 18, 2010
I would hope so.
Roger Dorn - March 18, 2010
Bradford or Clausen, Roger ?
Mr Orange - March 18, 2010
I believe he is speaking of Bradford
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
Hope so, just have a bad taste in my mouth from ND QBs lately….Plus it seems to me that if Clausen was a diva when he went to ND, then he probably hasn’t changed.
Mr Orange - March 18, 2010
Agree and I really don’t think he is a Mangini “team first” kind of character.
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I just really don’t want to take a QB in the first round, at least not that early.
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
Seconded. I’d pass on them both.
golanbatrac - March 18, 2010
If your going based on BPA, then its Bradford at #7. If your going by BPA with a mix of need, then its still Bradford at #7. If you are only looking at BDPA, then it would be Berry or someone of the likes in my eyes
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
BPA be damned, I don’t want a quarterback with that pick.
golanbatrac - March 18, 2010
+1000
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
Bradford is awesome.
Roger Dorn - March 18, 2010
And Couch was the next Elway…
I just really don’t want a QB in the first.
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
I never liked Couch, but I am sure some felt that way. There really isn’t any correlation between Couch and Bradford. Plenty of first round success stories for QBs.
Roger Dorn - March 18, 2010
I don’t think anyone ever said Couch was the next Elway.
We shouldn’t avoid drafting a QB in the first round just because it hasn’t worked out in the past. Bradford is a different player than Couch and Quinn and our scouts and coaches are all different as well. I don’t see any reason for Holmgren and Heckert to be scared of picking a QB in the first round because they had nothing to do with the other two guys. I sure they don’t think those picks are relevant to their evaluations of Bradford. If he’s there and they think he’s worth the pick then they’ll go for it.
Buckeye Brad - March 18, 2010
exactly. that just leads to problems…like lets say (hypothetically but it won’t happen) Dez Bryant (or maybe golden tate) is somehow available in the 2nd. that would be a steal because those guys would have dropped. do we pass on one of those guys b/c we haven’t been good at drafting receivers in the 2nd?
Also, should we not draft a LB who hasn’t played the 3-4 before? We whiffed on Beau Bell and Whiffed (so far) on veikune. should we avoid a later round pick on a Linebacker?
ON this theory, I totally agree with you brad. if bradford is available and they think he is “the guy” they should draft him, no matter how the team has drafted QBs in the past.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
We probably shouldn’t be… but I am. I’m sorry, no matter how illogical it may be, I’ve become hesitant to take a QB in the first round especially (and primarily because) when needs are bigger elsewhere and better overall prospects that meet those needs are available.
And right when I’d thought I’d become desensitized to bad drafts, our last one (having worked out) and some new staff has given me faith again. Just not enough to draft a QB over a defensive player, this player also even being the BPA.
The most important thing for me, though, in not liking a QB that early is our bigger needs on defense and the better players there.
Come to think of it, the Couch and Quinn failures have little to do with my stance on taking a QB that early. I mentioned it because Dorn said “Bradford is awesome.” People said Couch was awesome too. That was more about my saying, in my personal opinion, Bradford being “awesome” doesn’t make him better options than Berry or even Haden.
.
This much is redundant, however. Of course they’ll take the pick if they want him and he’s there.
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
now you are just talking about I am assuming, since you say BPA, that this is a situation where both bradford and berry are available.
If berry isn’t available and bradford is, I would take bradford in a heartbeat.
I also have not been hugely high on haden to begin with…so I would probably take bradford over Haden, but berry over bradford.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
I mention in the other thread, I prefer Berry OR Haden over Bradford.
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
well. I disagree.
I am not that huge on haden. He is a reach with that pick anyways, and there are CBs that may be just as good in the 2nd round.
bross09 - March 18, 2010
And putting Mack, Steinbach, and Thomas out there alone would be better than the 5OL Couch had when he was physically destroyed.
rufio - March 19, 2010
I’m just saying if we do I’d rather it be Bradford than Clausen…Berry would be a better pick at 7 if we dont trade up…honestly I think it’s basically all a coin flip right now who knows what our situation will be in 2 years….
Mr Orange - March 18, 2010
True, I guess it all depends on the variables that the FO considers for BPA, so who knows.
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
Me personally, I’d like to see us get Berry
Mr Orange - March 18, 2010
I think the whole “we will take a QB in the first round” crap coming from the Browns is a smokescreen.
I think that this front office is smart enough to know that we need a lot of help in other spots. Keep mentioning that we want a QB and someone will be dumb enough to trade up in front of us for Clausen.
It worked for Sanchez last season.
Bernie19Kosar - March 18, 2010
I don’t want to trade up anywhere for Clausen. I wouldn’t mind trading up a spot or two for Bradford. If we take Tebow at #7, I might instantaneously die.
rufio - March 18, 2010
If we trade up and don’t take Berry over Bradford, I might instantaneously die.
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
I just want to throw something out there.
What if Berry is on the board at 7, and we don’t pick him?
Bernie19Kosar - March 18, 2010
I’d be fine with it, so long as we take Haden instead.
golanbatrac - March 18, 2010
Or trade down.
golanbatrac - March 18, 2010
I probably won’t instantaneously die, but still a quick death just over a somewhat short period of time.
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
Who would we have picked?
rufio - March 19, 2010
Taylor Mays
/suddenly remembers we’re not the Raiders
Matt Y. - March 19, 2010
For discussions sake, let’s say it was for Haden.
Golan would be pleased, anyone else?
Bernie19Kosar - March 19, 2010
I would definitely “instantaneously die” if we took Haden over Berry.
Haden over Bradford is one thing, Haden over Berry is entirely different!
Simmsinns - March 19, 2010
the thing it would be is a steaming turd.
Dawg Nuts - March 19, 2010
I’d be pissed.
rufio - March 19, 2010
every single cleveland browns fan should wade out into lake erie and ritualistically drown themselves.
The other options are a 4-3 DE (Morgan) a boom or bust OLB (Pierre Paul) or Haden. Haden isn’t the same Mangini guy that Berry is and theres a real possibility of getting McCourty or Kareem Jackson in the second. Berry is easily the best option in my mind.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
Tebow at 7 would actually make me consider not watching football ever again.
Roger Dorn - March 18, 2010
Same. I would die.
emily522 - March 18, 2010
Holmgren isn’t dumb enought to pick Tebow in the first.
Buckeye Brad - March 18, 2010
Even I wouldn’t take tebow in the first, as badly as I want him to be our QB.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
Agree. Seriously Berry is our guy. We are going to get him I really believe that. As for Tebow I definitely think he is a good possibility in the second. But a big reason he is a nice option is because we don’t have to shell out $60 million for him like the rams will for sam bradford.
jaws. - March 19, 2010
Wouldn’t one of these QBs give anything to play for Holmgren? If Bradford is the man, couldn’t he make a deal to make contract negotiations easy on Cleveland but hard on any other team? Time for a return of some Bernie Kosar manipulations.
Spidey - March 17, 2010 via mobile
Oh, the Ol’ Supplemental draft trick. Worked like a charm.
SpecialBrownie - March 17, 2010
Why didn’t he mention trading for Troy Smith?
gahnki - March 17, 2010
I saw we just draft everyone from Ohio State from now on.
TheDriveStillHurts - March 17, 2010
No thread on this yet so I’ll post here..
“Coming from an offense where Josh Cribbs was the only true threat, Anderson is likely salivating at the chance to play with Arizona’s skill players. If Anderson winds up as the starter, his career could be resurrected throwing to the likes of Larry Fitzgerald and Steve Breaston.”
Not likely..
I saw this on the O&B Report, he’s salivating because he now has receivers capable of catching the crap that he throws….I’ll be sick if this guy is their starter next year…
Mr Orange - March 18, 2010
More likely, their careers will head down the toilet with his.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 18, 2010
yeah, there’s no way he resurrects anything. he may start, but that’s only becasue leinert has been so busttastic.
Dawg Nuts - March 18, 2010
Anderson will deffinatly get a chance to prove himself there. And honestly, I hope he does well. He didn’t do anything to the city of cleveland, and nothing to the team. He has always been the same QB, he just had an offense that supported him when he did well, and the right people around him. He did not lay down here and say he wasn’t going to play if they got rid of someone. He didn’t demand any trades when he got benched, he was a team player. He was just upset and pissed, as i think anyone would be, when the crowd cheered because he got hurt.
holmes213 - March 18, 2010
I guess I don’t wish DA any hard luck, but I’m indifferent to his future. He had every chance here and couldn’t deliver beyond 2007, and his idiotic comments on the way out didn’t do him any favors in my mind. I won’t feel strongly about him regardless of his results with the Cardinals.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 18, 2010
I wish him incredibly hard luck. if we don’t deserve a winner, DA doesn’t deserve to do well.
notthatnoise - March 18, 2010
+1
I wished him well up until he became a whiny girl after getting cut.
Simmsinns - March 18, 2010
+1
emily522 - March 18, 2010
I completely respect these points of view.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 19, 2010
+1
Mr Orange - March 18, 2010
I posted this elsewhere also, but does anybody know how many picks the record is that a specific team had for the draft in any particular year? I was just wondering since we are acquiring picks like they grow in our backyard.
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
Now it’s fixed
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
that was supposed to be under holmes comment above…@#$!
Kimble_79 - March 18, 2010
Sometimes you get a little raunchy, but dude, you take things head on. I do in fact, applaud you for that. Fight the good fight my friend.
SpecialBrownie - March 20, 2010
Excellent.
golanbatrac - March 20, 2010
High effing praise for you there, golan. And seconded, BTW.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 20, 2010
outstanding. rec.
Dawg Nuts - March 20, 2010
This thread needs to be locked.
gahnki - March 20, 2010
I already suggested this to chris.
bross09 - March 20, 2010
Please do, and let this be the end of it…
Mr Orange - March 20, 2010
we all seem to have decided we’re done anyway, so goodbye thread!
notthatnoise - March 20, 2010
I wish the racist content was removed first, or the entire post deleted if that’s what’s required.Otherwise I concur and won’t comment here again.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - March 20, 2010
rufio - March 21, 2010
Yes.
emily522 - March 21, 2010
rec. as i’ve said multiple times, i’m somewhat shocked this hasn’t been deleted. where are the mods?
notthatnoise - March 21, 2010
We don’t need to burn the book, just don’t read it.
This is my last post on this thread.
Brownie's Year - March 21, 2010
Shut up!
SpecialBrownie - March 21, 2010
You guys are all nuts.
Roger Dorn - March 21, 2010
Recced this so everyone can see the need to up the rec amount (not that Dorn’s post isn’t true.)
gahnki - March 21, 2010
You played Baseball in Mexico!
The defense rests.
SpecialBrownie - March 21, 2010
??
bross09 - March 22, 2010
Do you know who Roger Dorn is?
SpecialBrownie - March 22, 2010
A poster on DBN.
Roger Dorn - March 22, 2010
you were great in that credit card commercial.
Dawg Nuts - March 22, 2010
The 3rd baseman who punched Rick Vaughn?
North Coast Flea - March 22, 2010
Well, no.
He’s a catcher. And later a manger.
SpecialBrownie - March 22, 2010
Jake Taylor was the catcher/manager who played in Mexico. Dorn was the third baseman, investor who bought the team in ML2.Wild thing slept with his wife and Dorn punched him after they clinched the pennant.
Roger Dorn - March 22, 2010
Wow. My whole damn life has been a lie.
I thought you were my hero. I’m destroyed right now.
SpecialBrownie - March 22, 2010
it’ll be okay. go get a drink from pedro cerrano and unwind.
Dawg Nuts - March 22, 2010
Voodoo Cerrano or Christ Cerrano?
SpecialBrownie - March 22, 2010
I like Voodoo cerrano.
bross09 - March 22, 2010
definitely voodoo.
Dawg Nuts - March 22, 2010
Damn SB, learn your fake history.
North Coast Flea - March 22, 2010
That’s what I though…Dorn was the investor 3rd baseman…
bross09 - March 22, 2010
Man, that was a great movie.
gahnki - March 22, 2010
yes.
Dawg Nuts - March 22, 2010
yeah. he was the third baseman.
bross09 - March 22, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.